Reply With Quote
What'd I get wrong?
Hahahahaha!!!! Chicks must be beating down your door too!
What'd I get wrong?
I'm trying to picture how that conversation went, and how giddy they were when they came up with the idea to share a character on a basketball forum.
You still don't know?
lol
Did you even watch the video, counselor?
Yes I did.
I asked a simple question - what did I get wrong? Can you answer it or are you gonna derail a simple request for clarification?
They were suggesting whitey kill himself.
Do you realize that is different from actively wanting to kill someone oneself, counselor?
A simple yes or no will do.
"Affirming black life means that white death has to occur"
"There is no ethical reason white people deserve to live."
Those suggest more than just whitey being the one to do the killing.
Sure there's a difference, but it's a stupid one. It's a distinction without difference.
Thank you, counselor.
No further questions.
What's your point?
The point has already been made, counselor. Thank you.
"Affirming black life means that white death has to occur"
"There is no ethical reason white people deserve to live."
Never got the explanation of why these don't suggest non-whites kill whitey?
Conversation never happened, writing style is always the same. It's just one big got, not four little gots.
No it hasn't. You've just repeated the word counselor a bunch. Can you clarify your point?
You agreed there is a difference, counselor.
And not once did any black man say he wanted to kill whitey. You made that quite plain with your quotes. Thanks again, counselor. You were a big help in having things explained to you.
My question was why's that difference significant. Can't ask it any more clearly.
The black man said "Affirming black life means that white death has to occur" and "There is no ethical reason white people deserve to live."
How does that not suggest that anyone affirming black lives (which ostensibly includes the speaker) kill whitey?
actually, they didn't say that.
however, i'd like to take my mossberg to all those little worms.
If you don't know the difference between wanting someone to kill himself and wanting to kill that person yourself, I can't magically bring you to that threshold of intelligence.
How does it suggest that?The black man said "Affirming black life means that white death has to occur" and "There is no ethical reason white people deserve to live."
How does that not suggest that anyone affirming black lives (which ostensibly includes the speaker) kill whitey?
I don't have to prove a negative here. You have to prove your claim, counselor.
i'd have said "get over here and get used to sucking my white "
Again, wasn't my question. Why's that difference significant? Can you give me a reason?
This isn't asking you to prove a negative. Do the words "affirming black life means that white death has to occur" suggest that those "affirming black life" kill whitey?
The debate was about competing ethical systems. One team advocated "affirming black life" as ethical. They also said that affirming life required white death. The suggestion is that those who choose to be ethical by affirming black life kill whitey.
Sure. Saying someone should be dead doesn't mean you want to kill him yourself.
This is really simple stuff, counselor.
It doesn't mean that they want to kill whitey themselves counselor.This isn't asking you to prove a negative. Do the words "affirming black life means that white death has to occur" suggest that those "affirming black life" kill whitey?
Again, really simple. I don't see why you are having such difficulty with it.
Nope, that's the conclusion you jumped to. Maybe you're just really scared of black people, counselor. A lot of people here are.
A lot.
If it's so simple, why can't you answer my question.
Why's that difference matter? In both cases, the speaker advocates for white death.
How'd I jump to that conclusion? That's a fair reading of the statement.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
